Multiple Courts Reject Obama's Arguments For Keeping Visitor Logs Secret

[MannyGoldstein]

On another thread, someone implied that I was ignorant for not knowing that White House visitor logs are not public property. It should be understood that multiple courts ruled (under Bush) that these logs are public property, and have never ruled otherwise e.g.,:

http://www.pubrecord.org/law/197-white-house-loses-appeal-to-keep-visitor-logs-secret.html
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/06/white_house_visitor_logs_still.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

Bush's case is still in appeal, so it's Obama's right to refuse release until appeals are exhausted. As to whether going against all court rulings to date is the dawn of a new age of transparency, I leave that to the reader. I just hope that the reader had the very same opinion of this all when Bush fought the same request in the same way when we all wanted to know how many times Abramoff and company visited the White House.

[zbdent]

1. and where were they when Cheney was defying court orders

on who he met with?

[QC]

2. People here were shouting their indignation from the mountaintops about it.

But that was then and this is now.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Was There Anything Different About Bush's Request And Argument?

I don't know of any.

[QC]

4. It was also presented as a security matter, though the intent was

to keep people from knowing which special interests Bush and Cheney were meeting with to formulate policy.

Sounds very familiar.

You know, for someone who had the spare time, it would be easy to hit the archives and dig up some fun quotes from the people who now think this is no big deal.

[chill_wind]

5. Factual research. How inconvenient.

K & R.